Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Arden Hills' Answers to Plaintiffs First Interrogatories, at 6-7, attached as Soules <br /> <br />Aff., Ex. F. <br /> <br />There are several problems with this rationale: First, signs in other industrial areas- <br /> <br />like those within District 6 - enjoy less restrictions, and can be intemally Iit.6 If the extemal <br /> <br />lighting requirement were appropriate to maintain the "industrial character" of such areas, <br /> <br />then presumably that requirement would apply to all industrial areas within the City. Courts <br /> <br />have repeatedly held that "[z]oning ordinances must operate unifonnly," and that "the <br /> <br />unequal treatment of similarly situated parties is prohibited." Prior Lake Aggregates, Inc. v. <br /> <br />City of Savage, 349 N.W.2d 575, 580 (Minn. App. 1984); see also Northwestern College v. <br /> <br />City of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865, 869 (Minn. 1979) ("A zoning ordinance must operate <br /> <br />unifonnly on those similarly situated."). <br /> <br />Second, the rationale - that other types of lighting would be "inappropriate for the <br /> <br />industrial character of the district" - is an argument based on aesthetics. And although <br /> <br />otherwise legitimate regulations may advance aesthetic aims, an ordinance driven purely by <br /> <br />aesthetics is not a valid land use regulation. See State v. Steele, No. A05-2254, 2007 WL <br /> <br />46054, at *1 (Minn. App. Jan. 9, 2007) ("Generally, we will not deem an ordinance based <br /> <br />solely on aesthetic considerations to have a legitimate government purpose. . . ."), Soules <br /> <br />Aff., Ex. G; County of Wright v. Kennedy, 415 N.W.2d 728, 732 (Minn. App. 1987) <br /> <br />6 Sign District 6 includes properties within both the 1-1 (Limited Industrial) and 1-2 (General <br />Industrial) zoning districts. Sign Code S 1240.01. Both intemaI and backlit lighting are <br />pennitted in these industrial areas. See Sign Code tbI. I. <br /> <br />20 <br />